BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.166/13.

Date of instt.: 12.08.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 04.08.2015.

Karma son of Soma Singh, resident of VPO Peedal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal through his General Power of Attorney Sh. Baldev Singh son of Sh. Gaje Singh, resident of Village Peedal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Sanjeev Kumar son of Dalbir Singh, resident of Village Peedal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

2. IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. IFFCO Sadan CI District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017.

3. Vinod Kumar Agent, IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Senior Officer 5 C/1, Sheetal Complex Ground Floor, Rajbala Road, Patiala Punjab-147001.

4. IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for complainant.

                        Ops No.1 & 3 already exparte.

Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 4.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Tata 2518 TC truck bearing registration No.HR-64/7699, Engine No.085589 and chassis No.920859 in the month of December, 2012.  It is alleged that the complainant wanted to get insured his vehicle, so, he consulted with the Op No.1.  It is further alleged that the insured amount of Rs.47,000/- was paid to the Ops No.1 & 3 and after 3 days, the Op No.1 gave the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after completion of the documents, the complainant was plying his vehicle on his route permit and on 03.05.2013, the documents of vehicle were checked by the RTA in U.P. and he disclosed that the policy issued by the Op No.2 is not genuine and he imposed the fine of Rs.29,300/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant arranged the amount and paid the penalty amount.  It is further alleged that the complainant met with Op No.1 and narrated the whole facts but he showed his inability.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 4 appeared before this forum, whereas Ops No.1 and 3 did not appear.  Op No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 25.09.2013 and Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 21.03.2014.  Ops No.2 and 4 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant is not a consumer of answering Ops; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the Civil Court is the best platform; that no insurance policy No.79302069 was ever issued in favour of the complainant by the answering Ops No.2 & 4 and no amount for issuing such insurance policy was ever received by the answering Ops No.2 & 4 on behalf of complainant.  The insurance policy bearing No.79302069 was issued on 28.02.2012, in favour of Sh. Charan Singh S/o Pritam Singh, R/o Village Karthali, Distt. Patiala for the insurance of his vehicle bearing registration No6645.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C5 and closed evidence on 10.03.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops No.2 and 4 did not produce any evidence and so, the evidence of Ops No.2 and 4 was closed vide court order dt. 01.04.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that purchased a Tata 2518 TC truck bearing registration No.HR-64/7699, Engine No.085589 and chassis No.920859 in the month of December, 2012.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant got insured the said vehicle with the Ops No.2 & 4.  He further contends that the complainant was plying his vehicle on his route permit and on 03.05.2013, the documents of vehicle were checked by the RTA in U.P. and he disclosed that the policy issued by the Op No.2 is not genuine and he imposed the fine of Rs.29,300/- upon the complainant.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 4 vehemently contends that the present complaint has been filed by Sh. Baldev Singh son of Gaje Singh, resident of Village Peedal, the General power of Attorney and no reason has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that why the present complaint has been filed by the complainant through Sh. Baldev Singh, general power of attorney.  To rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 4 vehemently contends that the policy No.79302069 was issued in favour of Sh. Charan Singh S/o Pritam Singh, R/o Village Karhali, Distt. Patiala for the insurance of vehicle bearing registration No.PB11AH6645 and the said policy was not issued in favour of complainant.  On consideration of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that earlier the above-said policy was issued in favour of Sh. Charan Singh S/o Pritam Singh R/o Village Karthali, Distt. Patial.  The complainant did not take any action in this regard to the effect that the said policy was in the name of another person.  Moreover, no reason has been assigned by the complainant that  why the present complaint has been filed by him through Sh. Baldev Singh, general power of attorney.    So, we are fortified with the contentions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 and 4.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.04.08.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.